TOC Pages

Saturday, October 6, 2012

PL93-620 H. Jun 1973: Gathering up the views—the Senate hearing

To start with a personal note, I was in the hospital and missed the hearings. We kept hoping; I prepared a statement (submitted later for the record), and even bought a new suit, having it fitted bedside. McComb did attend and spoke, and I have several pages of notes I took on what he observed. The hearing record is also a help by recording the exchanges between Senator Bible (subcommittee chairman and only Interior committee attendee--Arizonan P. Fannin was the senior member and showed up at the beginning when Goldwater appeared, but did not participate) and witnesses. Then there are the 200+ pages of formal statements, markers of position at one crucial point; perhaps they could be considered "taste tests" of the sausage as then constituted and ground, or even suggestions on how to make the product more palatable.

So from my notes, McComb's report, not necessarily coinciding with the hearing record below:

Fannin stayed for 30 seconds.

Goldwater read his statement and left. He has been twisting arms.

Senator Moss of Utah (a pro-motorboater) showed up to rake NPS Director over the coals for the river companies--spent 25 minutes. Director bad on answering. An aide to Moss said Moss got Goldwater to drop his provisions on river regulation.

The administration is opposed to all; does not want Monument deletions and does want to study Havasupai for a year. Lovegren had committed NPS to exchange, and therefore would have supported Havasupai deletion.

The Forest Service was strong on its positions.

Interior Undersecretary only cared that Havasupai get land.

Hualapai attorney Marks opposed NRA being added to Park; even with concurrence.

Havasupai only ones in support of their request. Thanked Lovegren. When Bible queried, they said they wanted 24,000 acres back, then will not press for Great Thumb. Want an entry fee increase.

Clemons of hunter group against the Havasupai transfer. Wanted the zone of influence defined. Wanted Mt. Emma; supported LMNRA and ok on deletions. Another attacked condemnation absence and Bible agreed.

When timber people said they feared blanket authorization for zone, and wanted it defined, Bible agreed.

Emerson was more hostile than ever before; to McComb, he sounded bitter. At one point, when McComb was asking about some issue, Emerson replied, "You want too much."

Goldwater was seeing Senators personally.

Udall, on the other hand, when McComb met with him, took off his shoes, leant back and listened, asking questions. He was hearing some of this for the first time, and had not been well staffed. After Goldwater had pushed him, Udall had committed himself to hold hearings , but his staffman Bracey was not so certain.

SUMMARY; THE ANTIS

So, starting with the body count as it can be summarized from the hearing record:

Goldwater appeared, making a statement and spontaneous comments; which included question and answer with Chairman Bible. A very few other legislators contributed short statements.

The Department of the Interior sent on a lengthy report, and NPS was represented by its Director, accompanied by Chapman & Stitt.

Agriculture's was far shorter and the Deputy Chief Forester appeared.

There were 14 other witnesses or groups of witnesses:

The Havasupai, with their lawyer, Joe Babbitt.

The Hualapai, with their lawyer, Royal Marks.

Three spoke for the conservationist view.

Six spoke up for logging.

Two represented hunter groups.

There were some 90 statements or communications that made their way into the record's appendix. According to the staff note, there were many more and they tried to make those that appeared a "broad sampling" fairly representing views expressed. About half the statements used material from conservationist mailers or publications. Another third were from those who had taken river trips and were generated by commercial companies operating the motorized trips. Some 25 tribal entities had provided support for the Havasupai, which they bundled and sent on.

The archeologist who had worked on the Monument, Richard Thompson, sent a statement, and Globe Development Co., which used the Rain Tank Allotment, was glad to support S1296 now that its allotment was safe. A group of Navajo near Cameron wanted to have their land claim considered.

Lumping the Forest Service, loggers and hunters together:

The Forest Service agreed to its two contributions to the Park, but called the zone of influence "another level of administration" that is "undesirable and unnecessary". It opposed taking Forest lands, used for grazing by Indians and others and open to hunting, for the expansion of the Havasupai reservation. The Indian Claims Commission had awarded $1.24 million as final settlement for Havasupai land claims. With NPS, the Forest Service planned to conduct a study of the area's "uses and values" to "present recommendations at a later time".

The loggers and their supporters were all there to oppose the zone of influence as complicating still further management of lands now used for timber. Worse, it was not defined, and they had no idea how much it would affect them. One witness was questioned more closely by Bible as to whether it might be necessary to have a defined "buffer", but it was left as a matter to be discussed with Goldwater. Then when a national hunter representative again questioned the zone, Bible said that whatever it was, zone or buffer, it would have to be delineated and spelled out. "There is no question in my mind about that."

The hunters "freely" supported the elimination of lands from the Monument, and asked for more. The Arizona hunter from AWF was more specific, describing the efforts of his group since 1967 to react to various proposals to change the NPS boundaries. They wanted to add Mt. Emma to their bag of deleted Monument lands, and what I think is fascinating is that aside from calling Emma "outstanding wildlife range", they gave no explanation for what made the plateau deletions so suited for multiple use. They never made their case. However, AWF did support the Kanab & Coconino Park additions. More surprisingly, they now endorsed adding Lake Mead NRA lands to the Park as in S 1296. A sharp noticer, the witness noted that this addition included some BLM land, saying he didnt know whether Goldwater intended this or not. He opposed land going to the Havasupai, again mentioning the Indian Claims Commission settlement and asking for separate legislation. The zone was acceptable if putting land into it was a carefully regulated process. They accepted the Wilderness. The statement ended by congratulating "Goldwater and his staff" for their "attempt to satisfy all persons", but "may be…it is attempting to satisfy the requests of too many".

GOLDWATER'S TESTIMONY

However, this was Goldwater's bill, and it was his to present and defend, as he did on pp 31-8. Had I been present, no doubt I would have been muttering commentary as he went along, like this. He spoke of his 26 co-sponsors, adding he had introduced "this bill in many Congresses". Well, he hadnt; in fact he was always introducing a different bill, and always depending on NPS or somebody else, like us, for ideas. Bible hoped he had it together this time. Then Goldwater claimed he and Emerson had held many meetings and met with many as the best way to this. There were many compromises suggested, but everybody stood firm on the basic principle of identifying all within one great national park. Now here he could have mentioned us, since it was in 1966 that we were behind introduction of the first put-it-all-in-the-Park bill. At this point, Senator Fannin reappeared from other duties and put in a short statement again praising themselves for meeting and listening and being ready to make changes, "an honest attempt" at a bill with "the broadest appeal to the greatest number of people in Arizona". Then Bible pounced, saying Goldwater was taking half of Lake Mead, "my project", but only the Arizona part? G. assured him it "does not go into your land at all"; its "all canyon land". Then: "I want to make it crystal clear these lands are intended to remain in the recreation area after the boundary change is made." Huh?! Bible then jokes about Senator Hayden lecturing him for taking the great riches of Hoover dam. And G. explains that he is talking about the part of LMNRA that would be left separated north of the extended Park. He did have a map, so maybe it was clear. When G. spoke of the additions along the river, he mentioned that consent had to be given, and Bible wanted to know if that was spelled out in the bill.

In defending the Monument deletions, G. says "this is nothing new"; it has been done to NPS areas 21 times before. However, the list Emerson had had prepared did not contain the most relevant deletion, that in 1940 from this very Monument by presidential order (see my post of 12 Mar 2011); otherwise they might just have gotten Nixon to zap the Monument for them. Rather than confront the NPS change of mind, he dwelled on its past support of the deletions. (The ghost of Tillotson 40 years later, with most of the grazers dead, still trying to give those lands away.) Interestingly, he thought other Arizona witnesses would testify as to why it was desirable to "restore these lands to multiple use". They didn't. What then startles me is that he undercuts his point by talking a bit about all the new archeological discoveries of people living in the area back to 4000 years ago, discoveries made using private and government grants to carry out surveys. And those comments are not in the printed statement, meaning they were his.

He starts out talking about the zone of influence by mentioning John & me by name, "who were trying to help me reach a compromise bill which could be widely agreed upon". At this point, Bible cuts in, asking for the phrase's origin. G. continues reading, explaining it was meant to formalize the existing excellent working relationships between agencies. The zone would more rigorously get them to agree on a buffer with no adverse development. He then offers a couple of suggestions to meet objections, such as the charge of indefiniteness. He continued in his own words, trying to calm the loggers' fears that the zone concept might be applied to such places as Yellowstone. "I can't think," he says, "of any other park with the … features of the park itself, not included within the boundaries of the park." An astute observation (not one we had had), and going right to the heart of how to answer the question: How to have a "complete" political designation for the Canyon? Since, he went on, the Canyon's "geographic identity runs from Lees Ferry, clear down to the headwaters of Lake Mohave" (sic) we want to be able to determine what goes on there, but it does not affect "the men who cut timber" because there is none. This is disingenuous, for we clearly had indicated that we wanted either the Park or the zone to take in parts of the forests on the north & south rims. Still, he insisted that the agencies would have to get together and agree under his bill. Bible than asked how large the zone would be, and Goldwater tells him "about 5 miles back from the rim". Bible ask about "the depth", and the reply is "120 miles of river miles". Did even Emerson cringe? Bible asks if Goldwater is able to "spell out what can and cannot be done". Goldwater says the agencies will determine that. "What we want to prevent happening here is the establishment of any tramways, any hotels." (Take that, Confluence developers!--see my entry of 24 Jun 2012--my bold.) He opines that "the whole area…is so wild…almost inacessible". He had been there by foot and helicopter, and couldnt imagine anybody wanting "to build down there unless it might be a tramway, and even then that would be totally resisted by the Congress because it would require our approval". Would it were so, Senator, would it were so. Bible: "Terrifically expensive". G: Some tried "and that was stopped". ?? Goldwater then goes back to his statement to suggest other ways he would be willing to amend the zone language.

His statement then takes up several provisions of Indian interest: Legal rights are protected; no Indian land can be taken without tribal consent; the Secretary can assist in Indian recreation projects and provide training. At that point, he interpolates that "professional" river runners are already instructing the Hualapai, having made trips, and helping to develop their river access. He also suggests there be a "proper" sewage system for the Havasupai campground. The number of campers is now limited, and it is "one of the great possibilities of the Havasupai, to have a good campground below the falls where people can come and visit and camp." His statement takes up the restoration of some of their ancestral lands. Once living on millions of acres, they are entitled to some additional lands--300 live on 500 acres, while 115,000 Navajo live on 15 million, that is not exactly fair, and I hope you can work out a solution to help these fine people to survive. He adds the remark that younger men now rule or preside who can understand the problems much better than the older men. "They are not so historically steeped in historic tradition as the older ones were." Actually, the younger were as steeped and fervent about the land repatriation as any, men AND women. Going on with his statement, he justifies "correcting" the Havasupai boundary proposal because 24 kac of the Globe Co. grazing allotment was inadvertently included. And when Bible asks, to be sure, Goldwater says, "that was a mistake." But see below. He also adds that they should get the small mesa with their power plant, and tells Bible it is Forest Service land. He also wants them to have the beginning of the trail, also on Forest land, so they will feel ownership and develop more tourist traffic. Bible, assured this piece of Forest has nothing on it, adds the Forest Service has plenty of holdings anyway.

The testimony then turns to the Hualapai's three objections, which Goldwater offers "clarifications" on. The Hualapai fear my bill will make it impossible to build their dam, but that is not my bill, he said, for he had included language that nothing in the bill was to alter the reclamation laws. The legislative history would be that nothing in the bill has anything to do with any existing right to a hydroelectric or reclamation project. The bill doesnt get into that, and moving land from LMNRA to the Park makes no practical change.

Secondly, they fear a new boundary will take lands claimed by the tribe and be established on the south bank. No way will it do this. No lands can be taken or acquired without Hualapai concurrence. "If if does not agree to any proposed transfer, then it has a total veto over that transfer." But of course, he has mixed "claimed" lands, and lands "transferred" from the tribe. The Hualapai claimed to the middle, but the1883 executive order only put the reservation "on" the river, an arguably ambiguous phrasing, which the final Act aimed at clarifying as meaning at water's edge of the south bank. The Act did not take any Hualapai land, on the bank or the river bed or whereever; what it did do was give the Park jurisdiction over the water surface and traffic thereon. The third objection, about development along the river, did not matter and he would be glad to delete it if the Hualapai objected. Then he referred to the four meetings he and Emerson had had with Hualapai.

Then again, he interpolates, with a jump-cut at the Navajo: "the concern we have stems really from the Navajo ownership of the eastern edge of Marble Canyon." He says that some people concerned about the Canyon see the day when all the concessions would be moved back from the rim 3 or 5 miles--"the entire rim made native again", and visitors transported by electric buses. This is a long way off, "but this is a peculiar park that you dont wander around in." "We dont want to see the Navajos making deals with the Hilton Hotels or anybody else, to build hotels on the rim. So we have provided in this bill a mile buffer zone." Well! This is a bit astonishing to me. First that he brings up this "Hilton Hotels" threat. Second, that he was in favor of making the rim "native again"--a goal of Canyon advocates throughout the 70's and beyond, which NPS steadily refused to honor, until the 1990's when there was a serious effort to create such a transport system, which was, sorry, derailed by House Republicans--ah, Barry, where were you when the rim needed you? Third, I have looked in the Goldwater archives for more evidences of this "Hilton Hotels" idea, and found nothing more specific. I would love to know why he was so obsessed in these years 1968-73 with the Navajo?

The statement mentions the wilderness proposal, but emphatically states that nothing will have any effect on river trips or motors; the wilderness proposal excludes the river. Too bad, I would have been muttering. And he adds that he was the 79th person to go down the river. He offers Ben Avery's statement for the record as if read (see below). Then he hopes for agreement, since this will be the last chance to protect the park. He had worked closely with the Sierra Club Arizona representatives who attended our meetings and suggested the major changes in his bill. Any attempt to include land up into Utah or Nevada will result in failure. The Club will defeat its purpose if it tries to go whole hog.

Bible asks if there has been "considerable" damage? Goldwater mentions a "Kilroy was here" sign painted on a wall, that the perpetrators had to erase. More specifically, he says that when "Canab Canyon" (sic) dam was built, the silt mostly stopped, and the beaches are being eroded. The boatmen have done well, taking away the garbage. It has to be carried through. With better sanitation, it will become "less disagreeable". In January he had gone down in a helicopter to Hance Rapid to take photos, and saw beach changes; he was hoping for research on that. In some of the canyons, like Tuweep,you can see that use has increased greatly. Three years ago, he saw 300 people, mostly young, going down the Kaibab trail; this is great. "On the whole, the Canyon has not been damaged," thanks to NPS, "interested Americans, and… all the organizations that worked with it, and to the Indians who protected it zealously".

In his statement, Ben Avery noted he had worked with the Sierra Club, hunters, and cattlemen. He thought the bill as near to a meeting of minds as possible. He wanted the Havasupai to have a separate bill that did not include a grant of land or the waterfalls. He opined the "flat-water" river below Separation should not be in the Park. On the idea that none of the reservoir belonged in the Park, we thought that, in addition to securing Canyon integrity, having LMNRA involved in any part of the river administration was offensive; their concerns & clientele were so different. He hoped NPS would help the Hualapai develop recreation facilities at Diamond Creek. He put forth the idea of interagency action to protect the zone of influence because he was worried about inappropriate rim logging and protecting archeological sites. He favored the Wilderness and hoped the river would be added.

INTERIOR DEP'T/ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The statement of the Department (DOI), concurred in by the Administration, supported the basic concept of the bill if it were amended in several ways. Although, or maybe because, NPS had indicated it could support transferring some land to the Havasupai, it had scratched around, and decided that it would call for a one-year study, thus postponing any decision on land transfer. The northside Monument deletions, now found to be "rich in archeological resources" and not needed for exchange, should be included in the enlarged Park. Lake Mead's still "backwater" from mile 238.5, upstream a mile from Separation Canyon, should be left in LMNRA to a level 300' above maximum flood pool.

The zone of influence was not needed, since the agencies currently managing the lands "are now successfully cooperating" to prevent any activities that might impair the Canyon's fringes. (The statement showed no awareness of the idea of protecting and presenting the Canyon as an entity, missing the central point that Goldwater had embraced.) It insisted on its (obnoxious) "potential Wilderness" category for the river. It repeated its desire to see the reclamation provision deleted as it applied to the current Park, but did not object to language re-instating it for lands from LMNRA.

In more detail, DOI preferred Navajo Bridge as the starting point. It wanted condemnation power, as was usual practice, but would only accept donation of state land. Since tribes do not have the power to transfer their land, the word "concurrence" should be replaced with something more specific like "after approval of the tribal council". It did not like being "directed" to enter cooperative agreements. There was already a tribal financing bill being considered, so it was duplicative to authorize support for Indian projects here.

An important point was made about the sustained Goldwater effort to prevent adverse development on Hualapai and particularly Navajo land: It was "a taking" from the tribe, and DOI did not want to purchase the tribe's development rights. No one before had pointed out that preventing Navajo land from being developed had to be compensated.

DOI wanted grazing to continue for the current period plus one; less confusing. It thought the aircraft noise provision too status quo and suggested a more insistent procedure. Language was offered to insure the reclamation provision did not apply to current Park and Monument lands, just those from LMNRA, and wanted all the anti-dam provisions from 1968 applied.

DOI cited the Hualapai "opinion" that their reservation went to the middle of the river. Noting that the map set the Park boundary on the south bank. It stated compensation would be due IF "the tribe's contention is correct". The language said the area could not be obtained in any manner without concurrence. (Was DOI indicating that the bill implied that concurrence was required even if the Hualapai opinion were not correct? Strange.)

It concluded with a couple of technical provisions and a cost estimate.

Much more exciting was the appearance of NPS Director Ronald Walker (a non-NPS under-performer appointed by Pres. Nixon) with Regional Director Chapman and Superintendent Stitt -- but not because of the Park. No; Senator Moss of Utah, friend of the motorizing river concessionaires, had come to roast NPS, that fine old legislative sport. Nevertheless, there was lots of back-and-forth between Bible and NPS. As soon as Walker stated they wanted to keep the northside deletions, Bible noted that was not in the Goldwater bill, and Stitt answered with the archeology: "very significant archeological sites". Bible also got from them that it was covered with marginal piñon, not visited much, and not needed for exchange. He pinned them down on not wanting land transferred to the Havasupai; study was needed, and queried them about how the Havasupai used the land, finding out NPS didnt know how much stock was out there, though finally getting to the point that there were a "large" number of horses, and the permit was "indefinite" in length. Walker repeated they did not want the reservoir backwater, after stating it was flat water with skiing and boating.

Walker used the DOI line that the zone of influence was not needed because everybody already got along. Bible was puzzled; it just seemed like a buffer to him, added protection. He hung in there, and got across what NPS did not see: "what Senator Goldwater is trying to guard against…trying to produce by this suggestion…is protection for the entire Grand Canyon". "Bureaucrats change, they come and go." Walker suggests "buffer zone" is ok, and Bible replies, "A rose by any other name…" He suggests a buffer would be described by legal lines, but Walker only says he would look at it.

Getting to Wilderness, Chapman takes over on the "phase-out" of motors. Then Stitt gets up to do a map talk, and when he gets to Lake Mead and the cut-out for slackwater, Bible says it looks to him like splitting between two administrations, when it should be one or the other. Stitt's reply, that LMNRA has hunting & mining, brings Bible to say you want have a pure national park? "That's right." says Walker. After several pages of grilling on river traffic, Moss lets go. Bible winds up by checking to be sure that Reclamation will have no trouble operating Hoover Dam and backing water into the Canyon. NPS assures him that it does not want the reservoir stretch in the Park. We did, however.

HUALAPAI

The Hualapai contingent was next: Vice Chairman Sterling Mahone gave the major statement; there were additional remarks by tribal attorney Royal Marks, and statements from Louise Benson and Monroe Beecher, along with tribal resolutions, Governor Williams' position in favor of the dam, and support from the county Supervisors and the National Congress of American Indians and the Arizona Intertribal Council.

The Hualapai opposed the bill unless there were three amendments. It opposed adding the LMNRA land to the Park because it "effectively eliminates for all time development of the proposed Hualapai Dam". Just so. So no clean & efficient electricity, no Hualapai economic development; no full employment. Second, putting the boundary on the south bank would "take land from the Hualapai Reservation, which presently extends to the middle of the Colorado River". The meaning of the concurrence provision is "unclear", in spite of our "opposing any cession of (Hualapai) interest in the bed of the Colorado River" (my emphasis). Third, it opposed any secretarial authority over Hualapai development along the river. This would amount to a taking that would require compensation.

In closing, in a masterpiece of cynicism given the Hualapai's three-decade support of a hugely destructive hydroelectric dam, which it reiterated here, Mahone emphasized the "Tribe's commitment to the preservation of the natural beauties of the Grand Canyon". Marks gave a coda, pushing the dam for Arizona and the tribe.

HAVASUPAI

The Havasupai presentation opened with a personal statement by council vice chair Clyde Jack Jr; Augustine Hanna, council member, gave the main statement, and attorney Joe Babbitt made a few remarks. When Bible complimented them, he also asked for copies of their statement, since they had apparently not brought any.

Jack emphasized his own experiences, on land that extended from Havasu to Moenkopi Canyons. But some of the land was taken for the Navajo, then the tourists chased Havasupai out of Indian Gardens. Two people came to survey, and only did 528 acres out of 2 million. Bible was curious about how many lived on and off the reservation, and was told half on, half off.

Hanna presented the map the Council had endorsed in January 1973:

He emphasized they were asking for some -- 175 kac -- of their permit lands on the plateau, and also Pasture Wash. That was leased to Globe, and the Havasuapai had their best gardening and living places there. In Havasu Canyon, they wanted their burial ground back, now covered by the NPS campground. Campers, hikers, conservationists dont respect "things of the dead". They wanted control of the trail, access to their village, "a Park Service zoo".

They had offered to let the Park keep the inner canyon, and 1/8th of a mile back from the rim, and areas on the ends of Great Thumb and Tenderfoot Mesas. But that was not enough; NPS also did not want them to have their 160-acre living area in Grand Canyon Village. And it wanted to keep more of the Great Thumb for wilderness, though we would keep roads out. Its the only place where we can see out over the Canyon. We used to own the land; we have to support ourselves on the land; but we dont seem to matter. Hanna excoriated Globe and "rich people", saying Goldwater backed down. He offered to take either the Thumb or Pasture Wash.

He swung at us: "The big trouble for this bill: these so-called conservationists" who say we want to develop it. Thats "crazy". No way we can do that, and we dont want to. Look at what these people have done already with their "so-called protection". We want to keep our little tourist operation; big business would "change us into white people". We want to raise 7-800 cattle on the plateau, and some of us want to live there. And those who say we got paid for our land are blind; we were forced to take 50 cents an acre for it, and we will turn it back if you want. So give us Pasture Wash or the Great Thumb or both, the 160 acres at Grand Canyon Village, Havasupai Point, and 3000 acres from the old Monument. Thats fair, and otherwise this bill is "just one more attempt to take Indian land".

Babbitt went after the Park and Forest Services, surprised and amazed to find them in opposition because there had been extensive negotiation and agreement. Bible questions this, to be sure the Havasupai were in favor of the Goldwater bill, but against the NPS position.

CONSERVATIONISTS

Three spoke at the hearing. Also, Senator Case had submitted a statement about his comprehensive bill; I sent in a statement. George Alderson was Legislative Director for Friends of the Earth, headed by David Brower, who had led the fight against the dams and for protection of the entire Canyon. George was courteous, recognizing Goldwater for backing only one dam; with two, too much would have been destroyed. However, the hope for cooperation on this legislation was stalled because this bill offered "little ground for cooperation", and FOE urged the shelving of the bill if unamended. 1. 800 kac should be added. 2. More park land was deleted than added, setting a precedent for dismemberment of parks for commercial interests. The deletions totaled more than the acreage of a dozen national parks. Alderson did acknowledge that the President had the power to reduce the size of monuments based on an Act of Congress (as Emerson had found; at least no one remembered that this had been done to the very Monument Goldwater wanted to delete land from, and without such an Act). There were some minor problems too: no condemnation power, inadequate Wilderness, the reclamation provision. He ended by supporting the Case initiative. A Wilderness Society representative also supported the much larger park, and designating almost all of that Wilderness.

First, though, had come the principal statement of the Park advocates, that of John McComb. It was exceptionally strong, without being abrasive. He spoke of his extensive "personal familiarity" of the Canyon. He recalled the Sierra Club's focus on "one of the hardest fought conservation campaigns in our history". The dams were rejected, and the conviction became widespread to expand the Park "to more completely protect" the Canyon. He stated our philosophy: "the ideal national park would encompass the entire ecological and geographical … Grand Canyon … the main gorge, plus the tributary side canyons…from Lees Ferry to the Grand Wash Cliffs…277 miles. It would also incorporate the plateau lands adjacent to the rim which are both the setting from which most visitors view the Canyon and which represent the country into which the canyon has been carved." Some of this ideal park is within Indian reservations, and we do not advocate taking any of that land. The rest is mostly federal land, and has little economic potential aside from tourism--no vast store of mineral wealth, merchantable timber only along a small bit of the rim, nonexistent agriculture, limited grazing opportunities. Already, the bulk is under NPS. It is only fair to comment that he did not mention hunting, although the principal Arizona hunting proponent was next to testify, and they were the main source of opposition to our ideal. A supportable bill would take at least a large step toward the ideal, and it would not delete worthy lands for economic purposes. S 1296 does not meet our criteria. Park system lands would be decreased by 47 kac, and the result is mostly a reshuffling of names. Even worse are the economic deletions. The 97 kac deletion and the meagre expansion make clear the Grand Canyon, the American people, the National Park System, would be better off with no bill.

This negative stance was agonizing for us to take, McComb pleaded. We worked closely with Senator Goldwater on a bill we could both support. We appreciate his many efforts to meet us. If there are not major improvements, however, there is no question we will oppose the bill. We suggest, in particular, that a land base for the Havasupai, aside from the present permits, be found in the nearby private lands over which they once ranged. Those lands are better suited to grazing.

Giving greater unity to the fragmented administration of the Grand Canyon would help protect the Canyon from the crush of visitors, while enhancing their appreciation of it. McComb then went through 10 additions, adding the Case map to the record to illustrate: Start at Lees Ferry. Include a mile-wide strip of the west Marble rim, as well as similar strips to protect the Canyon's setting from logging, chaining, mining, over-development. We have reduced our Kaibab Forest additions to DeMotte Park and east-side rim viewpoints. We think the Tusayan area should be incorporated to prevent further poor development. Instead of deleting lands in the Havasu Canyon region, add more to the Park. Well, we were adding insult to injury here, I freely admit. Protecting the Park was one thing; taking more of what was then Forest land was really a poke in the Havasupai eye. Add more of the Kanab Canyon system with rim land to protect against logging as planned for the 1980's. Forget the Monument deletions. Toroweap Valley should be included in its entirety, as an entry to the Canyon and for its volcanics. The narrowness of the proposed Park in the Whitmore & Parashant-Andrus Canyon section is unreasonable; the entire systems should be in the Park. The Shivwits Plateau down to Kelly Point should be incorporated for its wild and natural condition.

He asked for condemnation authority to be restored. He brushed off the zone of influence for its "several serious weaknesses": no substitute for Park status, and very difficult to strengthen it here and implement it before the Secretary. He was luke-warm about assistance for Indian developments, while completely endorsing the idea of NPS working outside the Park to develop a program to interpret the Canyon in its entirety. He wanted aircraft regulation strengthened by banning in-canyon flights and limiting overflights. Repeal the reclamation provision. The wilderness provision is inadequate. He wound up by noting that river management was a headache in part because of uncertainty about the location of NPS units along the Hualapai Reservation. Language should clarify NPS authority to regulate river traffic the entire length of the Canyon. Now, some operators claim the left half of the stream is outside NPS jurisdiction.

The statement that I sent in for the record had two parts: an emphatic rejection of the proposal to delete lands, and a description of 12 additions, mostly of course, overlapping those McComb had testified about. The only one I want to quote is "1) The entire Colorado River within the Grand Canyon should be, for interpretive and administrative purposes, included in the Park. Therefore the Park should start just below Lees Ferry, near the junction with the Paria River, and include the river from bank to bank down to the Grand Wash Cliffs." That was what we then worked for over the next two years, and I believe to be the legal reality today.

Reading the hearings over today, even though I was not there, I wonder if we could have made a more effective presentation by combining into a panel, dividing up the sections of our position, while presenting a united multi-organziation front. Just a thought.

Sources: Material in my files, particularly "Hearing before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States Senate, 93rd Congress, First Session, on S. 1296", June 20, 1973.

Search This Blog

About Me

I saw the Canyon first in 1962, and spent much of the 1960's fighting the dams, and promoting an appropriate boundary for the national park. The 1970's were full of GC issues, dominated by the Congressional battle over changes in the GCNP boundary and the failed fight to secure Wilderness status. I rested then, until 1998, when the river access + wilderness effort led me to write "Hijacking A River: The Political History of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon". That book was the dark side; these blog entries are aimed at more light, a celebration of the Grand Canyon and its place as an icon of our environmental consciousness into the future.